That’s three non-sequiturs in a trenchcoat. You’re picking topics that sound vaguely related, and then misrepresenting them as well, with the bare fucking minimum effort. And in all likelihood you’re going to scoff at this comment not addressing your argument when what this comment is doing is highlighting how your argument is broken garbage.

Really, try forming a summary of any part of that. ‘Because of rising home prices, it is fundamentally impossible to own a video game.’ No. ‘Because ebook piracy is illegal, the medium of books are not preserved.’ Barnes & Noble is a hologram or something. Also, not letting you juke to preservation, when the topic is ownership. I’ve got a lot of shit preserved that companies would insist I don’t own. They are wrong. ‘Because digital goods have engineered scarcity, you don’t morally own them.’ Holy shit, that’s almost on topic! And yet: wildly misses the point, by not grasping how a normative argument works. As it happens - I am against the obstacles to people preserving the digital goods they bought.

The existence of those obstacles doesn’t mean they don’t own it. It means they’re being robbed.